Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Mac Giolla Phadraig C, Ahmad Fisal AB, Bird J, Kammer PV, Fleischmann I, Geddis-Regan A
    Spec Care Dentist, 2024;44(3):676-685.
    PMID: 38110713 DOI: 10.1111/scd.12949
    BACKGROUND: Dental behavior support (DBS) describes all techniques used by dental professionals to ensure that dental care is safe, effective, and acceptable. There is a need to standardize outcome measures across DBS techniques to reduce heterogeneity, limit selective reporting, promote consistency, and optimize outcomes across DBS research. A comprehensive review of existing measures is a prerequisite to understanding potential outcomes related to the area of interest.

    AIM: This review had three aims: first, to identify the outcome measures (OMs) reported in trials of dental behavior support; second, to categorize the component DBS techniques reported within interventions according to emerging agreed terminology; and, third, to map outcome measures to intervention type.

    METHODS: A scoping review of trials evaluating DBS techniques was undertaken from 2012 to 2022. The review was prospectively registered. Studies were identified through Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO. Study abstracts were screened by two reviewers. Data were extracted by single selector. Outcome measures were sorted according to measurement domains (physiological, behavioral, psychological, and treatment). Responses were assimilated and summed to produce a refined list of distinguishable outcome measures. Intervention types were categorized according to accepted descriptors. Frequencies were presented; associations between outcome domain and DBS type were also reported (Chi-square test of independence).

    RESULTS: A total of 344 trials were included in the review from an initial 14,793 titles / title and abstracts screened. Most involved children (n = 215), most were from India (n = 104), involving basic dental care (n = 117). The median number of outcome measures per trial was four (range = 1-12); 1,317 individual outcomes were reported, categorized as: psychological (n = 501, 38.0%); physiological (n = 491, 37.3%), behavioral (n = 123, 9.3%) or, treatment-related (n = 202, 15.3%). DBS interventions were split between 239 (45.7%) pharmacological and 283 (54.1%) non-pharmacological; 96.6% of interventions mapped to accepted descriptors. A significant relationship was noted between the type of intervention and the outcome domain reported.

    CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate massive variation in outcome measures of DBS interventions that likely lead to unnecessary heterogeneity, selective reporting, and questionable relevance in the literature. A large range of DBS interventions were mapped according to BeSiDe list. There is a need for consensus on a core outcome set across the spectrum of DBS techniques.

  2. Geddis-Regan A, Fisal ABA, Bird J, Fleischmann I, Mac Giolla Phadraig C
    Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 2024 Oct;52(5):660-676.
    PMID: 38680013 DOI: 10.1111/cdoe.12969
    BACKGROUND: Little is known about patients' or carers' reported experiences of dental care provided using dental behaviour support (DBS) techniques. Qualitative literature can provide unique insight into these experiences.

    AIM: To explore and synthesize qualitative literature related to patient experience of dental behaviour support.

    METHODS: A PROSPERO-registered systematic review of qualitative articles was undertaken. Studies were identified through MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. Abstracts were screened by two reviewers and data were extracted to summarize the qualitative findings included within them. A thematic summary approach was used to synthesize the qualitative data identified.

    RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included. Studies primarily explored experiences of dental care of children by speaking to their parents (n = 16), particularly regarding paediatric dental general anaesthesia (DGA) (n = 8). Studies of adults' experiences of DBS (n = 7) covered a range of techniques. Nine studies explored broader dental care experiences and did not study specific DBS approaches. A thematic synthesis identified five themes applicable across the studies identified: Trust and the therapeutic alliance supporting effective care delivery; considered information sharing often alleviated anticipatory anxiety; control and autonomy-reduced anxieties; variations in the perceived treatment successes and failures of DBS techniques; and DBS techniques produced longer positive and negative impacts on patients beyond direct care provision.

    CONCLUSION: Qualitative research has been under-utilized in research on DBS techniques. Care experiences of most DBS techniques outside of paediatric DGA are poorly understood. Building trust with patients and enabling autonomy appear to support positive patient-reported experiences of care.

  3. Mac Giolla Phadraig C, Healy O, Fisal AA, Yarascavitch C, van Harten M, Nunn J, et al.
    Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 2024 Aug;52(4):550-571.
    PMID: 38516782 DOI: 10.1111/cdoe.12953
    OBJECTIVES: Dental behaviour support (DBS) describes all specific techniques practiced to support patients in their experience of professional oral healthcare. DBS is roughly synonymous with behaviour management, which is an outdated concept. There is no agreed terminology to specify the techniques used to support patients who receive dental care. This lack of specificity may lead to imprecision in describing, understanding, teaching, evaluating and implementing behaviour support techniques in dentistry. Therefore, this e-Delphi study aimed to develop a list of agreed labels and descriptions of DBS techniques used in dentistry and sort them according to underlying principles of behaviour.

    METHODS: Following a registered protocol, a modified e-Delphi study was applied over two rounds with a final consensus meeting. The threshold of consensus was set a priori at 75%. Agreed techniques were then categorized by four coders, according to behavioural learning theory, to sort techniques according to their mechanism of action.

    RESULTS: The panel (n = 35) agreed on 42 DBS techniques from a total of 63 candidate labels and descriptions. Complete agreement was achieved regarding all labels and descriptions, while agreement was not achieved regarding distinctiveness for 17 techniques. In exploring underlying principles of learning, it became clear that multiple and differing principles may apply depending on the specific context and procedure in which the technique may be applied.

    DISCUSSION: Experts agreed on what each DBS technique is, what label to use, and their description, but were less likely to agree on what distinguishes one technique from another. All techniques were describable but not comprehensively categorizable according to principles of learning. While objective consistency was not attained, greater clarity and consistency now exists. The resulting list of agreed terminology marks a significant foundation for future efforts towards understanding DBS techniques in research, education and clinical care.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links